Poll: Sons of Confederate Veterans wants old Duval County Armory; Yes or No?

[m74reeves]

The bottom line here is that the Mayor and his administration publicly announced that there was to be a list made of city owned properties and "nothing" was done.  There are far too many announcements coming from the mayor and his administration about plans that are never realized.  It is unsettling.  There is also the question of why between Public Works, Public buildings and a city real estate office that we would be hiring someone to create a list of city owned properties when the city should be able to generate an up to date, accurate list without the need for a "study" by an outside organization.  The lack of an updated list is not only problematic but in many ways unacceptable.  These assets belong to the citizens and by the appearance of things, it does not look like the city even has an understanding of what those assets are!  Amazing"

Sorry I messed up the formatting here, but related to Cheshire Cat's comment is that Florida Statute 166.0451 requires EVERY local government to put together an inventory every 3 years of properties owned by the municipality that would be suitable for affordable housing. In order to figure out what is suitable for affordable housing, there would have to be a master list of city owned properties put together. Where is this stuff? This statute began in 2007, so are we due for a new list (this is assuming that a list was prepared in 2007 and 2010)?

[m74reeves]

166.0451 Disposition of municipal property for affordable housing.â€"
(1) By July 1, 2007, and every 3 years thereafter, each municipality shall prepare an inventory list of all real property within its jurisdiction to which the municipality holds fee simple title that is appropriate for use as affordable housing. The inventory list must include the address and legal description of each such property and specify whether the property is vacant or improved. The governing body of the municipality must review the inventory list at a public hearing and may revise it at the conclusion of the public hearing. Following the public hearing, the governing body of the municipality shall adopt a resolution that includes an inventory list of such property.

(2) The properties identified as appropriate for use as affordable housing on the inventory list adopted by the municipality may be offered for sale and the proceeds may be used to purchase land for the development of affordable housing or to increase the local government fund earmarked for affordable housing, or may be sold with a restriction that requires the development of the property as permanent affordable housing, or may be donated to a nonprofit housing organization for the construction of permanent affordable housing. Alternatively, the municipality may otherwise make the property available for use for the production and preservation of permanent affordable housing. For purposes of this section, the term “affordable” has the same meaning as in s. 420.0004(3).

[mbwright]

More laws the city conveniently forgets about, or ignores.  Would be interesting to see the 2007, and 2010 lists, too. and the outcome.

[Cheshire Cat]

166.0451 Disposition of municipal property for affordable housing.â€"
(1) By July 1, 2007, and every 3 years thereafter, each municipality shall prepare an inventory list of all real property within its jurisdiction to which the municipality holds fee simple title that is appropriate for use as affordable housing. The inventory list must include the address and legal description of each such property and specify whether the property is vacant or improved. The governing body of the municipality must review the inventory list at a public hearing and may revise it at the conclusion of the public hearing. Following the public hearing, the governing body of the municipality shall adopt a resolution that includes an inventory list of such property.

(2) The properties identified as appropriate for use as affordable housing on the inventory list adopted by the municipality may be offered for sale and the proceeds may be used to purchase land for the development of affordable housing or to increase the local government fund earmarked for affordable housing, or may be sold with a restriction that requires the development of the property as permanent affordable housing, or may be donated to a nonprofit housing organization for the construction of permanent affordable housing. Alternatively, the municipality may otherwise make the property available for use for the production and preservation of permanent affordable housing. For purposes of this section, the term “affordable” has the same meaning as in s. 420.0004(3).

Well now, another case of the city's lack of due diligence and overall disrespect for it's own written requirements. 

[Cheshire Cat]

More laws the city conveniently forgets about, or ignores.  Would be interesting to see the 2007, and 2010 lists, too. and the outcome.

Indeed and they continue to get away with it.  We the taxpayers need to demand better management and oversight of "the citizens" assets! 

[m74reeves]

this is a STATE statute, btw. even more embarrassing.

[sheclown]

This is one of the reasons why I am against the city taking at-risk properties from owners for preservation reasons. 

The city's properties are just as vulnerable and at-risk.

The Armory, for one. 

9th and Main, for another.

[CityLife]

this is a STATE statute, btw. even more embarrassing.

That statute appears to relate exclusively to property that is "appropriate for use as affordable housing".

[Cheshire Cat]

this is a STATE statute, btw. even more embarrassing.

sheclown This is one of the reasons why I am against the city taking at-risk properties from owners for preservation reasons.

The city's properties are just as vulnerable and at-risk.

The Armory, for one.

9th and Main, for another.

You are both right on the money with these statements.  Gloria, this city has in the past secured many private properties for a variety of reasons and often it has led to their sell off at bargain basement prices or demolition.  It would be a very iffy thing to have the city take control of further private properties even for preservation purposes.  The folks in the Preservation office would be vigilant about them but in many cases are not able to override the will and agenda's of some in power.

[sheclown]

this is a STATE statute, btw. even more embarrassing.

sheclown This is one of the reasons why I am against the city taking at-risk properties from owners for preservation reasons.

The city's properties are just as vulnerable and at-risk.

The Armory, for one.

9th and Main, for another.

You are both right on the money with these statements.  Gloria, this city has in the past secured many private properties for a variety of reasons and often it has led to their sell off a bargain basement prices or demolition.  It would be a very iffy thing to have the city take control off further private properties even for preservation purposes.  The folks in the Preservation office would be vigilant about them but in many cases are not able to override the will and agenda's of some in power.

as recent history tells us...

[m74reeves]

citylife, agreed that the statute is related to property suitable for affordable housing, which may or may not be the case for the armory. perhaps i should have started a new thread, but my point was that the city seems to be incapable of puting together a listing of properties that the city owns. in order to conclude what city owned properties might be used (or sold for, etc) for affordable housing, the city needs to have some sort of list of what they own to begin with. i threw out this statute as a means to try to figure out what the city owns and what are plans for these properties.

obviously there are parcels that the city owns that we are aware of such as parks, city hall and some parcels that are probably needed or earmarked for future projects/engineering/drainage/etc., but there are some properties that should be reviewed to see if the rental or disposition can aid the city directly financially OR perhaps the disposition can aid the city by provision of affordable housing or support of a group that provides some sort of social service to the community or supporting economic development...there has to be a better tool for disposition of publicly owned properties.

[CityLife]

I totally agree. I was just pointing out that I don't think the city is at risk of violating that statute here...but you are right that they maybe doing so in other cases.

[m74reeves]

we're on the same page.    I have a tendency to pick up a different book, sometimes. haha.

you've made some excellent points about the disposition of this particular property. 

[JaxUnicorn]

166.0451 Disposition of municipal property for affordable housing.â€"
(1) By July 1, 2007, and every 3 years thereafter, each municipality shall prepare an inventory list of all real property within its jurisdiction to which the municipality holds fee simple title that is appropriate for use as affordable housing. The inventory list must include the address and legal description of each such property and specify whether the property is vacant or improved. The governing body of the municipality must review the inventory list at a public hearing and may revise it at the conclusion of the public hearing. Following the public hearing, the governing body of the municipality shall adopt a resolution that includes an inventory list of such property.

(2) The properties identified as appropriate for use as affordable housing on the inventory list adopted by the municipality may be offered for sale and the proceeds may be used to purchase land for the development of affordable housing or to increase the local government fund earmarked for affordable housing, or may be sold with a restriction that requires the development of the property as permanent affordable housing, or may be donated to a nonprofit housing organization for the construction of permanent affordable housing. Alternatively, the municipality may otherwise make the property available for use for the production and preservation of permanent affordable housing. For purposes of this section, the term “affordable” has the same meaning as in s. 420.0004(3).

Now now Reeves....do you actually think the City follows its own rules/laws?  How's that working out with the ordinance that instructs the City to preserve historic structures?   

[m74reeves]

i think you can surmise my response, but you know it's hard to even know if the city is following its own rules when you cannot get the most basic information about how city business is conducted.

the city has got to do better and quit talking out of both sides of their mouth. the existing ordinance does instruct to have "the least intensive impact" on properties in historic areas, but then gives the MCC Chief the authority to interpret and execute as she deems fit.

my newbie impression is that a lot of city staff people have more power than the city council, maybe even the mayor.  there definitely is not a shared vision to improve the city...it's all about each person's little power play.